slabdog Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 ^^ can you elaborate? What makes it good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 ^^ What he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 why is it good? because it is compelling footage that has sparked a debate about whether it's the real deal or not, and we are having to pick apart the guys past to see if he has been associated with previous bigfootery or hoaxing to try and help us decide. If it was a poor quality hoax, we'd all unanimously agree that it was a hoax, just by looking at the video and seeing it for what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 why is it good? because it is compelling footage that has sparked a debate about whether it's the real deal or not, and we are having to pick apart the guys past to see if he has been associated with previous bigfootery or hoaxing to try and help us decide. If it was a poor quality hoax, we'd all unanimously agree that it was a hoax, just by looking at the video and seeing it for what it is. Good answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 It's all a matter of opinion. I personally do not find it good or compelling for the simple fact that if that is a real bigfoot we would absolutely positively have a specimen by now. If BFs walk that slowly we with that little awareness we would be inundated with pictures and videos of very high quality. So no dice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 I can't make a judgement one way or the other about the video portion showing the figure walking, it's too blurry and no detail to see anything but a figure strolling in the woods. The issue I have with the video is with the tracks. They just look manufactured to me, but then, that's my take on them. Obviously others see them differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 why is it good? because it is compelling footage that has sparked a debate about whether it's the real deal or not, and we are having to pick apart the guys past to see if he has been associated with previous bigfootery or hoaxing to try and help us decide. If it was a poor quality hoax, we'd all unanimously agree that it was a hoax, just by looking at the video and seeing it for what it is. I haven't done that. ( pick apart Freeman) To the contrary: 1) I find the tracks in the footage to be preposterous 2) I find the fact that such an elusive creature would put itself in a situation to be easily filmed by a guy talking aloud and walking around for a significant amount of time prior to the "money shot" to be preposterous. 3) I find his (Freeman's) mannerisms, comments and voice tone on the tape to be suspicious ( I.e. contrived) 4) I find the film subject to be bulky, move unnaturally, appearing to look down at his pathway as a man in a mask would, and more akin to a fat guy in a fur suit than an elusive primate designed by Mother Nature to be an extremely stealthy apex predator. So separate the "Freeman shots" that others are taking from the footage itself. I ask again. Why is it good? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Perez Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 If you are to look at Paul Freeman's track record (all his findings, be it footprints, hair, videotape or still photos) he is arguably the most successful field Bigfooter this world has ever seen. Yet the paradox of that statement is Paul was never a very physically fit person, so I find it difficult to believe that he was able to find more evidence for Bigfoot than anyone else. And for those of us who really looked and listened to the the videotape made by the English TV crew, Paul makes a false statement about something he should know better about, so that really opened my eyes about his credibility. If you are just a believer in all things Paul, then certainly please disregard these comments. The numerous times Paul has been the subject in the Bigfoot Times newsletter: Freeman, (Leon) Paul, Feb. 1998, p. 2; Sept. 1999, p. 4; Dec. 1999, p. 2; May 2000, p. 2; Feb. 2001, p. 4; Mar. 2001, p. 2; Apr. 2001, p. 2; Nov./Dec. 2001, p. 2; Nov. 2002, p. 4; Feb. 2003, p. 2; Apr. 2003, p. 1, (obit) p. 3-4; May 2003, p. 1-2; Jan. 2004, p. 3; Feb. 2004, p. 1; Feb. 2004, p. 4; Sept. 2005, p. 4; Dec. 2005, p. 2; Mar. 2006, p. 3; June 2006, p. 3; Oct. 2006, p. 3; Nov. 2006, p. 2; July 2007, p. 1-2; May 2008, p. 2; Feb. 2009, p. 1; Aug. 2009, p. 2-3; Sept. 2009, p. 1-2; Oct. 2009, p. 3; Oct. 2010, p. 1; Jan. 2011, p. 3; Feb. 2012, p. 3-4 When Paul died I phoned the family and his son was quick to get off the phone once I started asking questions and I found that of interest. Having met Paul once, in June 1989 in Pullman, Washington, I don't know how much of his claims are legitimate and what is B.S. Let's just put it this way. He is not the type of person you would loan $20 to and expect to get your money back. And as a note, his videotape was shot in 1992, NOT 1994 and Dr. Jeff Meldrum, who reviewed the late Vance Orchard's book on behalf of the the late Richard Greenwell's publication for the International Society of Cryptozoology, should have caught that one, as he makes the same mistake in his book, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. Daniel Perez editor/publisher: Bigfoot Times Bigfoot At Bluff Creek Big Footnotes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Junior Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 I don't know if I its is real but when I saw it after a few times alarm bells rang... 1 the tracks 2 the noise he is making wondering around 3 the subject in the film doesn't move smooth 4 the subject appears to look down most strides as a man would in a helmet or mask to see where he is going 5 his jovial commentary I m not a none believer but I think of myself as a logical person and the above 5 things gets a little voice somewhere in my head saying fake. Also though I have never seen one so can I make a call like that? But if I go off evidence that I believe to be real or simply unexplainable either way this film doesn't sit we'll with me, especially when you then delve into Freeman the person. If he did see this subject in the film why did it step across the game trail, why did it not try and circle him or walk directly off away into the dense woods, why did it not drop and hide? Patty walks off yes but she's exposed in a creek bed and heads off away from the filters rapidly never looking down an action I would expect from this Creature should it be real. I can't explain the PG film, Scott herriots film (it's in dense woods miles up a mountain no sense in Hoax), the footage from the police dash cam that steps across the road in massive strides... To me these are the films I can't say what they are but tie in with almost all sightings... I can't say Yes it's a hoax but if I was to play the percentage game that's what I would back, there is no unexplainable factor with this like the films I mentioned. That's just my humble silly English opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 why is it good? because it is compelling footage that has sparked a debate about whether it's the real deal or not, and we are having to pick apart the guys past to see if he has been associated with previous bigfootery or hoaxing to try and help us decide. If it was a poor quality hoax, we'd all unanimously agree that it was a hoax, just by looking at the video and seeing it for what it is. I haven't done that. ( pick apart Freeman) To the contrary: 1) I find the tracks in the footage to be preposterous 2) I find the fact that such an elusive creature would put itself in a situation to be easily filmed by a guy talking aloud and walking around for a significant amount of time prior to the "money shot" to be preposterous. 3) I find his (Freeman's) mannerisms, comments and voice tone on the tape to be suspicious ( I.e. contrived) 4) I find the film subject to be bulky, move unnaturally, appearing to look down at his pathway as a man in a mask would, and more akin to a fat guy in a fur suit than an elusive primate designed by Mother Nature to be an extremely stealthy apex predator. So separate the "Freeman shots" that others are taking from the footage itself. I ask again. Why is it good? I agree with the points you have made about the footage....you are clearly a better hoax spotter than I, and after re-watching it, I see exactly what you are talking about. However, I have never heard of Freeman nor seen this footage until it popped up on the forum. My first impression was that the footage was indeed compelling, more so than the usual blobs or cheesy hoax vids that pop up on youtube, Apparently others must have felt the same or we wouldn't still be discussing it on an Internet forum some 13 years after it was filmed. My first reaction to this video was "WHOA! And, what do we know about the background?" I believe based on what you, and other have said here, and after learning a little about Mr Freeman, that this video is almost certainly a hoax. Just one thing though....Are you saying that Mr Freemans history never once crossed your mind, and that you never considered what the back story or his character might be? Really? not even once? ... I think you just took that stance just to try and prove a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 I saw the video ( years ago) before I knew anything about what folks said about him. I think the biggest thing that peaked my intestest about Freeman specifically was after seeing the very unique sausage finger-esqu casts and wondering where they were coming from. He seemed like a nice enough guy. Just some odd circumstances surrounding him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAfooter Posted June 9, 2013 Admin Share Posted June 9, 2013 OK, I give up. I cannot find that which I remember (could be part of the problem!) about Freeman admiting to the hoax. I do not want to rely on the GMA tape since video can be edited to show whatever the editors wants it to show. Without the full unedited interview, I am not going to rely on it as the sole source of the "admitting" evidence. I personally thought there was a more definite admission (or admissions...) and they were more widely circulated. Therefore I cannot for certain say whether he admitted to it or not and I retract my previous accusation. However, there is enough doubt in my mind, based on his total body of work, so that Freeman's evidence are still inconclusive to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Here's one http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/dennett03.htm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 ^ ouch! :/ and, +1. thx, Slab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAfooter Posted June 12, 2013 Admin Share Posted June 12, 2013 Here's one http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/dennett03.htm But Dennett's account did not line up with what I heard on the GMA tape (especially the last question). Did it to you? Maybe I just missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts